The democrats want to ban all semi-automatic guns…don’t tell us this isn’t their plan….

[woodwork201]

Ah.
You agree there --is-- line that draws the limit of which weapons are protected by the the 2nd Amendment and which are not.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Contrary to your claim, and proof of mine.

Per you:
-There is no line. There's no "dangerous or unusual" clause in the Constitution, gun controller. You're a fucking idiot and completely unwilling, because you know you're unable, to defend your claim that dangerous or unusual arms, or arms not in common use, are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- There is no dangerous and unusual line in the Constitution; the line doesn't exist, gun controller. Tell where the line comes from and what weapons you believe fall into that category, gun controller.
- There's no "except" in there.

AR15: In common use?

Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons. You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists. You -clearly- are not reading for content or comprehension.

www.usmessageboard.com

So, Scotsman, you fucking idiot:
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

So now will you answer the question that you've avoided for months, the question that asked you and you started this whole nuclear line as a way to keep from answering?

Will you now say what weapons you think the Constitution permits a ban on, weapons that are more dangerous than a rifle? No, you're not going to answer because you're still not going to admit that you're a Brady-style gun controller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no line between a musket and nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not in the category protected by the 2nd Amendment or a right to keep and bear arms.
Not even you are stupid enough to assume that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to keep and bear weapons that would end life
on earth.
Nukes are not included in the right to keep and bear arms, therefore there's no limit on the 2nd Amendment and "shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to end the world.

You just contradicted yourself.
Your statement, above demonstrates there --is-- line that draws the limit of which weapons are protected by the the 2nd Amendment and which are not.
And that line must be somewhere between firearms, which you agree we have the right to own and use, and nuclear weapons, which you agree we do not.
Thank you for proving me correct.

So, Scotsman - where is that line, and how do you know?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no line between a musket and nuclear weapons....

What's the matter, Scotsman?
Got nuthin?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Well, then I guess we gotta level up to full automatics then, huh.

They'll have to repeal the NFA, first and that's a very risky move.

 

[badbob85037]

The attack in the AR-15 was always just the first step…..the AR-15 was the Trojan Horse…….they get that rifle banned, then demand all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns….and then, after that, they come back for the rest…..

This is where the anti-gun fanatics and their useful idiots step in and deny the truth.……

This video from pro-freedom patriot Colion Noir gives a good rundown on the facts in this case.

Most damning is this exchange between Dan Bishop (R) and chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D) in a congressional committee meeting during the markup of the bill on July 20, 2022:

Bishop: Is there anyone on the other side that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yeah, that's the point of the bill.


Bishop: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, you're saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yes, the problem is they are in common use.
————————
The bottom line is that if you have a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine with "any other characteristic that can function as a grip," or a semi-automatic pistol that has a magazine that is not a fixed magazine with one of the myriad features listed, then congratulations! You're now the proud owner of an "assault weapon."

Does anyone want to wager that the phrase "function as a grip" is going to be subjectively interpreted in the same manner that a piece of plastic was deemed to be a "machine gun"? Because that might be the only way of distinguishing between a gun that is "allowed" under this unconstitutional monstrosity and an "assault weapon."

Unlike the old ban, you need only one feature, not two, to be in the "assault weapon" club these days. Plus, to sweeten the deal, they've decided to also ban standard-capacity magazines. Because tyranny is never satisfied with halfway measures.

But not to worry: the anti-liberty left ever so graciously exempts — for now — certain types of firearms:

Yep, it's true! They're coming for your guns.

Democrat Rep. David N

www.americanthinker.com

TYRANTS KNOW YOU CAN NOT HAVE TOTAL RULE UNTIL YOU GET THE POPULATION'S FIREARMS even though joe has threatened us with nukes.